[2025:RJ-JP:28050-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1116/2023 Kapil S/o Shri Rameswhar Lal, Resident Of Vpo Shital Via Bara Gram Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur, State Agriculture Management, Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018 Through Its Secretary. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Iliyas Khan, Adv. for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Sara Praveen, Adv. Ms. Divya Rathore, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 25/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to take notice of different conditions laid down in the advertisement for Non-TSP Area candidates and TSP Scheduled Area candidates. 2. While the candidates from TSP Scheduled Area were given relaxation to place before the Selection Board the proof of qualifying examination before the date of written examination, there was no such condition allowed for the non-TSP candidates. [2025:RJ-JP:28050-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-1116/2023] 3. Learned counsel submits that there is per se discrimination between them which has resulted in ousting the appellant from participation. 4. We find that learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect and relying on the law as laid down in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors; 2017 4 SCC 357, has denied the relief to the appellant as he did not possess the requisite educational qualifications on the last date of submission of the application form. We also find that the candidates appearing and belonging to Non-TSP areas have been treated differently from those candidates who belong to TSP Areas. There is a reasonable classification between two different candidates who belonged to two different areas. Reservation for TSP area is also provided separately. 5. In view of above, it cannot be said that there is a discrimination between similarly situated persons. Since there is no violation of Article 20 of Constitution of India, no case for interference is made out. All the candidates belonging to Non-TSP areas were treated as similarly by the respondents. For examining their qualification, the last date was fixed as the date on which the application form were to be preferred, hence, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not want any interference. 6. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/03